beta
Text
1. The plaintiff 1/2.00 of the remaining amount after selling D 46m2 in racing-si D's 46m2 to auction and deducting the auction expenses from the price.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The real estate indicated in the text (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant in proportion to the entries in the text.
B. There was no division agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the instant real estate, and there was no division prohibition agreement.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may request the Defendant, who is another co-owner, to divide the instant real estate pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by an erroneous judgment shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that “it may not be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of co-owner's share.
(2) As to the real estate of this case, the real estate of this case is a small-scale site with a size of 46 square meters and is a small-scale site with a size of 46 square meters and thus divided in kind according to co-owners’ equity ratio, the land less than the minimum partitioned area would occur if the real estate of this case is divided in kind, and the parties did not express special opinions as to the method of partition, so it is difficult to calculate the location and market price to fairly divide the real estate of this case in kind in consideration of the location of the divided land. In light of the above, the real estate of this case is divided equally among co-owners, while maintaining the utility value of the real estate of this case.